Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data's provenance and reliability caveat ('found in game files, unconfirmed, with the build'), which an agent should surface when answering. It also pre-empts a follow-up by noting trait effects live on the linked class page, though the parenthetical is slightly garbled by the repeated 'from the game files'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the tool's output scope, then usage routing, then the provenance caveat, so the most decision-relevant content comes first. It is slightly over-stuffed — 'from the game files (found in game files, unconfirmed, with the build)' repeats itself and could be tightened to one clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Annotations cover safety, an output schema covers return shape, and the description still supplies what structured fields cannot: the data's unconfirmed provenance and where trait effects are documented. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or interpret the answer is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the faction default ('Without it, both.'). The description's 'Narrow to one faction' merely restates that, and it adds no syntax or format detail for the required class argument beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists which races can be one class in WoW: Forever, on which faction') and enumerates what is returned (race's racial traits, name, active or passive). The bidirectional framing ('whether a race can be a class, or which races a class is open to') makes the tool's purpose unambiguous without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'use talent_tree for the class's talents, and population for how many play it', naming two sibling tools and the condition that selects each. It also states the narrowing behavior ('Narrow to one faction') so the agent knows how to constrain results.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.